Here's my CnC, remember that anything i do not write about is considered as fine.
I'll also be assuming you made your actual signature and i'll compare the two when possible.
Firstly, the biggest issue of the image is the lack of depth: as a viewer i only one background layer, containing a background, a character and some effects, plus a second layer on top of everything composed of a black blur on the left and bottom side, some main text and a hardly visible secondary text.
Ignoring the content of each layer, this should be avoided as it gives a "printed on paper" feel on the image.

Now, the first layer (the one with Sej), ignoring the black blur, has a fine amount of blending, however placement and flow are lacking.
Placement lacks because the left side of the image is mostly empty compared to the right, the render should've been placed to the left more.
As for flow, it's lackluster as the blue lines coming out of her body lead to the left and so do the background lines, however the ones on her arm point to the top; this also causes composition's quality to fall as it seems mostly messy. You also forgot to remove a little white brush next to her arm.
Comparing this layer with your signature's image is quite effective here: you see that there are no overly empty spaces, almost every part blends together (the top right corner not so much) and there's a general flow of going to the top, which is also strengthened by the form of the character.

As for the first layer, the blur is done poorly on the left side as it's not well distributed.
On top of that, the text acts as a divired rather than connecting the two layers: the colors of the main text are way too bright compared to the rest, the shadow you've put underneath it absolutely mutilates depth (as our brain would think that if there's a shadow quite similiar to the object, then beneath it there's a flat surface) and the white outline(which isn't really an outline but whatever) makes the text feel old and childish.

As for the suidical graphics text, i understand it's a watermark you chose to apply, however there's a fundamental flaw.
Question is, why do you place a watermark? Simple, to be recognized as the autor of something. Now, if you put a watermark you usually have two thoices: the first is to make it almost invisible, just to annoy who tries to steal it or who actually uses the image (this option isn't recommended), while the second is to pretend you were requested to implement it inside the image as a whole, so you disregard its size and "weight" but you make so it blends perfectly in, this way it's like you'd say "look, i'm a l33t pro sig maker" (preferred choice).
Now, the issue is that your watermark doesn't fall into either of the two categories!

Comparing the second layer to your signature's image, you can see the absolute difference: the text in the signature has the same colors of the image and it actually connects the message you wanted to deliver (the text's meaning) with the bottom layers in a seamless way.

My suggestions to improve is to try your hardest to imagine how the whole image will look, the develop it from the most important point.
Anything that you place on top of already existing layers should look like an extension of whatever is underneath it.

Here's my CnC, remember that anything i do not write about is considered as fine.
I'll also be assuming you made your actual signature and i'll compare the two when possible.
Firstly, the biggest issue of the image is the lack of depth: as a viewer i only one background layer, containing a background, a character and some effects, plus a second layer on top of everything composed of a black blur on the left and bottom side, some main text and a hardly visible secondary text.
Ignoring the content of each layer, this should be avoided as it gives a "printed on paper" feel on the image.

Now, the first layer (the one with Sej), ignoring the black blur, has a fine amount of blending, however placement and flow are lacking.
Placement lacks because the left side of the image is mostly empty compared to the right, the render should've been placed to the left more.
As for flow, it's lackluster as the blue lines coming out of her body lead to the left and so do the background lines, however the ones on her arm point to the top; this also causes composition's quality to fall as it seems mostly messy. You also forgot to remove a little white brush next to her arm.
Comparing this layer with your signature's image is quite effective here: you see that there are no overly empty spaces, almost every part blends together (the top right corner not so much) and there's a general flow of going to the top, which is also strengthened by the form of the character.

As for the first layer, the blur is done poorly on the left side as it's not well distributed.
On top of that, the text acts as a divired rather than connecting the two layers: the colors of the main text are way too bright compared to the rest, the shadow you've put underneath it absolutely mutilates depth (as our brain would think that if there's a shadow quite similiar to the object, then beneath it there's a flat surface) and the white outline(which isn't really an outline but whatever) makes the text feel old and childish.

As for the suidical graphics text, i understand it's a watermark you chose to apply, however there's a fundamental flaw.
Question is, why do you place a watermark? Simple, to be recognized as the autor of something. Now, if you put a watermark you usually have two thoices: the first is to make it almost invisible, just to annoy who tries to steal it or who actually uses the image (this option isn't recommended), while the second is to pretend you were requested to implement it inside the image as a whole, so you disregard its size and "weight" but you make so it blends perfectly in, this way it's like you'd say "look, i'm a l33t pro sig maker" (preferred choice).
Now, the issue is that your watermark doesn't fall into either of the two categories!

Comparing the second layer to your signature's image, you can see the absolute difference: the text in the signature has the same colors of the image and it actually connects the message you wanted to deliver (the text's meaning) with the bottom layers in a seamless way.

My suggestions to improve is to try your hardest to imagine how the whole image will look, the develop it from the most important point.
Anything that you place on top of already existing layers should look like an extension of whatever is underneath it.

Thee sucidial graphics isn't blurred at all
It's hidden lite a watermark should be...
A piece of art should be focused on the art itself not thee creator

I can asssure you it was never a .gif and there are 0 c4d's in this sig.
You should really check up on how to give CnC and realize what is what in a piece of art

Ok, now you really need to take a step back cause if you see yourself as a artist. Oh boy you are sadly mistaken, + i found plentyfull more problem like the lowQ resources you've been using in this. You want a rant not a C'nC, besides you will never improve cause you are already settled with this Remarkable Achievement of obtaining this level of skill.

You don't want to get your feelings hurt over a piece you should only have spend 5 minutes on.

Pls I ain't claiming I'm good at al, + you bitching about advice is the worst thing you can do. oh and here is a image of what I actually mean.

Here this Sejuani image is 100x better than the Quality you have used.

ps. please note that I only post about the bad things, and if you can't take a light insult like mine you ain't cut out for the real thing. This is how I train others to improve... sadly the ones that used to do this are dead as this side of the site has become shit. Please take IV2B 's words by hearth.

You improved, but only a little. To be honest, to improve you should listen to any CnC that it's given to you, not just mine.
Yes it'd mean accepting harsh words, but that's why it's not easy for everybody.
For example, KillTheNoise posted "That's a pretty ugly ass font" and while that's quite harsh, it's also true.
That's excatly what happens when you create something personal (like a painting, a poem) and people "trash" it, so you feel the urge to write why you did what they critiqued. That always leads to bad spots and you'd quickly be awarded the "cry-baby" medal quite soon.
The same happened here: people criticise things they believe are wrong or done poorly in the image, each one with their own flavor, and instead of accepting that you felt the urge to specify how those flares are bubbles or how somebody is a terrible person.

Just work on it, accept harsh CnC from everybody and you'll get better as a result of that. =)

You improved, but only a little. To be honest, to improve you should listen to any CnC that it's given to you, not just mine.
Yes it'd mean accepting harsh words, but that's why it's not easy for everybody.
For example, KillTheNoise posted "That's a pretty ugly ass font" and while that's quite harsh, it's also true.
That's excatly what happens when you create something personal (like a painting, a poem) and people "trash" it, so you feel the urge to write why you did what they critiqued. That always leads to bad spots and you'd quickly be awarded the "cry-baby" medal quite soon.
The same happened here: people criticise things they believe are wrong or done poorly in the image, each one with their own flavor, and instead of accepting that you felt the urge to specify how those flares are bubbles or how somebody is a terrible person.

Just work on it, accept harsh CnC from everybody and you'll get better as a result of that. =)

Ok, now you really need to take a step back cause if you see yourself as a artist. Oh boy you are sadly mistaken, + i found plentyfull more problem like the lowQ resources you've been using in this. You want a rant not a C'nC, besides you will never improve cause you are already settled with this Remarkable Achievement of obtaining this level of skill.

You don't want to get your feelings hurt over a piece you should only have spend 5 minutes on.

Pls I ain't claiming I'm good at al, + you bitching about advice is the worst thing you can do. oh and here is a image of what I actually mean.

Here this Sejuani image is 100x better than the Quality you have used.

ps. please note that I only post about the bad things, and if you can't take a light insult like mine you ain't cut out for the real thing. This is how I train others to improve... sadly the ones that used to do this are dead as this side of the site has become shit. Please take IV2B 's words by hearth.

That thing you say is a random c4d is a accidental brush idiot
would like to add what you and IV2B have said is true and I will work on those things, I can take cnc like gaut damn x.x just stop saying I can't take it lolz